Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is encountered much more frequently in the screening population compared to
the symptomatic setting. The behaviour of DCIS is highly variable and this presents
difficulties in choosing appropriate treatment strategies for individual cases. This
review discusses the current data on the frequency and rate of progression of DCIS,
the value and limitations of clinicopathological and biological variables in predicting
disease behaviour and suggests strategies to develop more robust means of predicting
progression of DCIS.

Introduction

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a neoplastic proliferation of cells within the ductal-lobular structures
of the breast that has not penetrated the myoepithelial-basement membrane interface.
In the symptomatic setting, DCIS accounts for 3% to 5% of cancers, although with the
advent of population based screening it now represents approximately 20% of breast
cancers detected [1,2].

Epidemiological, histopathological and genetic studies have provided compelling evidence
to support the concept that DCIS represents the precursor of invasive carcinoma in
the majority of cases. In recent years, this 'model of progression' of breast cancer
has been further refined with the recognition and characterisation of earlier precursor
lesions, such as atypical ductal hyperplasia and the columnar cell lesions [3].

Because the aim of screening is to detect and treat disease in its early stages in
order to prevent life-threatening disease, it could be argued that DCIS (and maybe
even earlier lesions) represents the ideal target in a strategy to prevent invasive
breast cancer.

This makes the assumption that all DCIS will inevitably progress to invasive carcinoma;
however, much about the behaviour of DCIS is still poorly understood because opportunities
to study its natural history are limited. Over recent years, large clinical trials
and follow-up on several important studies in which patients received diagnostic biopsy
alone as treatment for their DCIS have provided further insight into the behaviour
of this disease. The latter studies, which are biased towards lower-grade lesions,
show that, untreated, up to 50% of DCIS lesions progress to invasive disease, and
that the time for progression may be up to four decades [4,5]. Conversely, this also indicates that half of these lesions do not progress to invasive
disease within a woman's lifetime. The challenge is to define better ways of quantifying
the risk of progression for individual lesions in order to better tailor treatment
decisions.

This review aims to present available data regarding the frequency and rate of progression
of DCIS, the value and limitations of clinicopathological and biological characteristics
in predicting progression and suggests future strategies to help more clearly define
disease potential and inform treatment decisions.

Clinicopathological variables and relation to progression

DCIS is a heterogeneous disease varying in clinical presentation, morphology and behaviour.
In an attempt to reflect this heterogeneity, several histopathological classification
systems have been proposed. These are based on nuclear morphology, growth pattern,
cytonuclear differentiation and the presence or absence of necrosis, in various combinations.
Some of these classification systems provide poor reproducibility, thereby limiting
their clinical practice [6]; however, others give more acceptable levels of reproducibility and have been shown
to be clinically relevant. The Van Nuys classification system is based on nuclear
grade and necrosis, yielding three subgroups of DCIS – non-high-grade without necrosis,
non-high-grade with necrosis and high-grade with or without necrosis – that show an
association both with local recurrence and disease-free survival [7]. The classification system recommended by the National Coordinating Group for Breast
Screening Pathology in the United Kingdom [8] classifies the disease into three groups on the basis of cyto-nuclear features, with
low-grade DCIS being composed of small regular cells, often showing a cribriform or
micro-papillary architecture. High-grade DCIS is composed of large, pleomorphic cells
with frequent mitotic figures, often having a solid architecture and associated necrosis.
Intermediate-grade DCIS shows nuclear features intermediate between low- and high-grade
DCIS. This classification system has also shown clinical relevance, with high-grade
DCIS exhibiting a higher frequency of recurrence than low-grade DCIS [9].

Careful analysis of large series of cases is essential to establish accurate information
on disease behaviour. In the Van Nuys series of 866 DCIS patients, there were a total
of 98 recurrences, 46% invasive and 54% non-invasive, with the probability of an invasive
recurrence at 8 years calculated to be 6.4% and breast cancer-specific mortality to
be 1.1% [10]. This correlates well with other studies reporting mortality rates of approximately
1.5% to 2.0% at 10 years [1].

Bijker and colleagues [11] followed up 775 cases of DCIS as part of a randomised clinical trial of breast conserving
surgery for DCIS with or without radiotherapy. Recurrence was detected in 125 cases
at a median follow-up of 5.4 years: 65 developed recurrent DCIS whilst 60 developed
invasive breast cancer. In addition to histological type (nuclear grade, architecture
and necrosis), other factors found to be related to the rate of recurrence included
young patient age, mode of presentation with recurrence being more common in symptomatically
detected lesions, extent of disease and margin status. Radiotherapy reduced the risk
of recurrence compared to local excision alone, although recurrence was still high
in patients with involved or not-stated margins, supporting previous studies emphasising
the importance of margin status [12]. Interestingly, whereas intermediate- and high-grade DCIS showed significantly higher
risk of recurrent DCIS compared to low-grade DCIS, the risk of recurrence as invasive
disease was independent of DCIS grade. The outcome of the invasive disease differed
markedly between the grades, however, with the risk of distant metastasis and death
being significantly higher in recurrences secondary to high-grade DCIS [11]. It has previously been shown that the grade of DCIS corresponds to the grade of
subsequent invasive carcinoma [13] and together with genetic studies showing different patterns of chromosomal alterations
in DCIS and invasive carcinomas of different grades [14] these findings support the proposal that different grades of DCIS represent distinct
disease entities that give rise to different pathways of disease evolution.

In view of these data, it could be argued that treatment of DCIS should focus particularly
on preventing recurrence in high-grade DCIS, since this is most likely to progress
to life-threatening disease. However, several studies that report the long-term follow-up
of patients with DCIS treated with biopsy alone have been important in highlighting
the progression potential of lower-grade lesions.

Betsill and colleagues [15] reported on the outcome of 10 patients with low-grade DCIS treated with biopsy alone
with a mean follow-up of 21.6 years, and found that 7 had developed invasive carcinoma
at an average interval of 9.7 years (range of 7 to 30 years). In the most recent report
from the long-term follow-up study of Page and colleagues [4] in which 28 women with small low-grade DCIS were treated with biopsy alone, 11 women
developed invasive breast cancer (39.3%). Of these, 7 were diagnosed within 10 years
of their biopsy, 1 within 12 years and 3 over 23 to 42 years. Five of the 11 women
who developed invasive carcinoma died of metastatic disease, with a mean follow-up
of 31 years. In all cases, the invasive carcinoma developed in the same quadrant of
the same breast that the biopsy had been taken, supporting the proposal that this
represents disease progression rather than de novo disease.

Comparable findings come from the Nurses Health Study [5], which showed that of 13 patients with DCIS treated by biopsy alone, 10 developed
recurrent disease: 6 developed invasive carcinoma and 4 developed recurrent in situ disease. Invasive carcinoma developed in patients with DCIS of all grades, including
2 of 6 with low-grade disease (at 5 and 18 years post-biopsy), 2 of 6 intermediate-grade
DCIS (at 5 and 16 years post-biopsy) and 2 of 3 with high-grade DCIS (at 4 and 5 years
post-biopsy). Taken together, these studies suggest that whilst progression to invasive
disease is more rapid in high-grade DCIS, all grades have significant potential to
progress.

A much lower recurrence rate was reported by Eusebi and colleagues [16], who found 11 of 80 women with DCIS treated with biopsy alone developed invasive
carcinoma at a mean follow-up of 17.5 years. This is likely to reflect the inclusion
of a proportion of cases categorised as pure clinging DCIS. In the report from Bijker
and colleagues [11], an analysis of recurrence rate in relation to histological subtype of low-grade
DCIS revealed that none of 59 cases of clinging DCIS developed recurrence, in contrast
to low-grade cribriform lesions, which exhibited similar recurrence rates to high
grade DCIS. To reflect this very low risk of recurrence and progression, clinging
DCIS is now categorised under the heading of 'flat epithelial atypia', and this illustrates
the value of such long-term studies to help refine diagnostic categories.

Biological variables and relation to prognosis

Biological and genetic studies have aimed to refine the prediction of disease behaviour
that can be achieved on the basis of pathological features alone. For many of these
studies there are confounding factors that make interpretation complex, for example,
the effect of disease extent and margin involvement.

Of the biological markers most extensively analysed, possibly one of the studies that
most effectively controls for these factors is that of Cornfield and colleagues [17]. They analysed 151 cases of DCIS detected by mammography or as an incidental finding
in a benign biopsy (suggesting limited disease extent); all were treated by breast
conserving surgery alone and confirmed clear of margins. They found recurrence in
42 cases (27.8%) between 11 and 97 months following surgery and analysed disease behaviour
in relation to expression of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, p53, Ki-67,
HER2, bcl-2 and p21 in addition to conventional histopathological parameters. Whilst
correlations between biological markers were noted (e.g., significant negative correlation
between HER2 and oestrogen receptor, and between HER2 and bcl-2), none of the biological
markers exhibited any association with disease recurrence, either in univariate or
multivariate analysis [17].

Other workers have reported associations between some of these markers and disease
recurrence. Ringberg and colleagues [18] found high Ki-67, high p53 and reduced bcl-2 to be associated with recurrence in
univariate analysis, although in multivariate analysis including tumour grade and
growth pattern none reached statistical significance. This is largely in agreement
with other reports that show a relationship between grade of DCIS and biological factors,
such as p53 mutation [19].

Whilst these studies suggest that biological markers do not enhance the predictive
power of histopathological factors, Barnes and colleagues [20] have recently reported the independent prognostic value of HER4 expression in DCIS.
HER4 has been shown to modulate HER2 signalling leading to a reduction in cell proliferation
[21]. In a retrospective analysis, this group showed that HER2 and HER3 expression was
significantly associated with disease recurrence whereas HER4 expression was significantly
less frequent in disease that recurred. Expression of HER4 in the absence of HER2
led to a highly significant disease-free survival advantage, and the prognostic significance
of HER4 expression was maintained in multivariate analysis that included disease grade
and margin status. Whether HER4 expression can contribute to the recognition of a
subgroup of DCIS with better prognosis remains to be established and will require
larger long-term studies and, in particular, greater numbers of lower grade lesions.

Another approach trying to define factors that will predict behaviour of DCIS has
been to identify changes in gene or protein expression associated with the transition
to invasive disease. Ma and colleagues [22] used laser capture microdissection of in situ and invasive disease followed by cDNA microarray analysis to generate a gene expression
profile associated with disease progression. The major differences in gene expression
profile were seen in relation to different grade invasive tumours rather than disease
stage and generally disease of different stages from the same patient clustered more
closely than stage-specific disease. One exception was in high grade DCIS where cluster
analysis identified a set of 29 genes that was more highly expressed in the matched
invasive component compared to the DCIS, suggesting they may be related to progression.
The gene set included genes involved in cell cycle control, centrosomal function and
DNA repair, and one gene, RRM2, which has been linked to metastatic potential. As yet, the value of such a gene
profile has not been established, though data from similar studies comparing invasive
and matched metastatic carcinomas suggest a common predictive gene signature could
be elusive [23].

A recent report has proposed that the natural history of different DCIS subtypes relates
to the pattern of development of DCIS within the breast lobe [24]. This hypothesis, based on extensive review of large two- and three-dimensional histological
sections of DCIS, suggests that DCIS may appear as unifocal, multifocal or diffuse
disease due to involvement of individual terminal ductal-lobular units, several distant
terminal ductal-lobular units or involvement of larger ducts. They found that low-grade
DCIS tends to be multifocal, intermediate grade unifocal and diffuse with duct neogenesis
almost exclusively high grade and this has an impact on recurrence. This study also
associated the diffuse neogenetic DCIS with expression of Tenascin-C in the stroma,
a reflection of the remodelling occurring in high grade disease. Such changes in the
microenvironment may influence tumour progression. Alterations in the myoepithelial
cell population and the stromal cells around DCIS have been described that could influence
initiation of invasion [25-27]. However, further functional studies and analysis of larger case series will be required
to determine the importance of such phenotypic changes.

Conclusion

The studies to date indicate that DCIS of all grades has the potential to progress,
though high-grade lesions progress more rapidly than lower grade lesions and are more
likely to lead to metastatic disease and death. Long-term follow-up studies have further
stratified disease behaviour and led to the identification of lesions that exhibit
significantly lower progression potential, such as flat cell atypia, and it is clear
that these should be treated differently to DCIS. Given the different behaviour of
low and high grade DCIS, both in terms of leading to life-threatening disease and
in the time for evolution of the disease, it would appear warranted to tailor treatment
more closely to disease type, with less aggressive therapy for low grade lesions.
However, the challenge remains to accurately identify the small number of low-grade
lesions likely to progress in order to provide the most appropriate treatment without
over-treating the vast majority of patients with lesions that will be cured by breast
conserving surgery alone.

Thus far, biological studies have not had a significant impact on predicting disease
behaviour, although continued efforts, informed by functional (i.e., in vitro and animal models) and genetic studies, together with greater understanding afforded
by studies of disease development as described in [24], and careful analysis of large clinical trials should help to better define disease
behaviour and define distinct subgroups of DCIS with prognostic significance. Because
the events being measured are rare, that is, recurrence, invasion and metastasis,
particularly for low grade lesions, meaningful studies to test the predictive power
of new approaches and biological markers will require analysis on large numbers of
cases with follow-up, which is most likely to be achieved through material gained
from clinical trials.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Note

This article is part of a review series on Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer, edited by Nick E Day, Stephen Duffy and Eugenio Paci.